Introduction
This chapter presents a cross-case analysis of the findings and results of the three institutions that took part in the study. The research questions and literature review provide the framework for this analysis. The findings are contextualized in light of the theoretical framework of critical education theory, and the implications of the findings are carefully examined. Several conclusions are drawn from the research and
recommendations for policies are addressed. It is my hope that these findings and results provide insight to educational leaders and policymakers who are interested in pursuing or maintaining pathways of accessibility to selective institutions for community college transfers students.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of critical education theory allows each institutional narrative to be contextualized according to its unique position in the hierarchy of American higher education. As explained in Chapter 1, the reason that institutions of varying levels of selectivity were chosen was due to the belief that each institution’s position within the hierarchy of the higher education system profoundly influences how they approach and consider the transfer function at their institution. Critical education theory provides the framework for the consideration of how educational structures reproduce and participate in social hierarchies while simultaneously producing possibilities by which these social hierarchies may be disrupted. These seemingly contradictory perspectives, articulated through the social reproduction theory of Pierre
Bourdieu (1973, 1980/1990, 1984) and the concept of democratic education of Amy Gutmann (1987) drive the analysis of the cross-case findings.
When examining why a policy or practice is pursued in higher education, it is important to consider that it is not just individual administrators at individual institutions who are making decisions based on one criterion. Rather decisions are made due to a combination of the beliefs and actions of individual actors, institutional culture, peer institutions, and the larger realms of the American higher education system and society in general. Given the complexity of the power relations continuously at play between and among individuals and institutions, it is important to consider how these power relations are maintained. For Pierre Bourdieu, these relations are mediated by the exchange and accumulation of different types of capital. Therefore, a consideration of why a college or university would choose to recruit community college students needs to recognize that forces at play within the field of American higher education, and the desire by institutions to retain different types of capital needed to participate in certain tiers, heavily impact how American colleges and universities implement policies and procedures.
Despite its important contributions, a Bourdieuian analysis does not sufficiently address all of the findings. Therefore, the concept of democratic education, and the idea that in a democratic society, colleges and universities are driven by more than just their own self-interests, was also explored through the data. For example, philosophical issues raised by administrators about moral obligations connected with the admissions process, as well as policy decisions around access and equity, were explored as they relate to the concept of democratic education. This additional consideration allowed for a more
nuanced and comprehensive understanding of why these colleges pursued the practice of recruiting community college students.
Research Questions
The two main research questions that drove this study were 1) Why did
administrators at private selective institutions engage in recruiting community college transfer students? and 2) How do administrators perceive of this practice at their institutions? Although the interviews conducted with each administrator were loosely structured, certain sub-questions were covered in each conversation. These questions included:
♦ What is the institutional context in which such decisions are made, and what organizational changes have impacted the recruitment of community college transfer students?
♦ What are the benefits and challenges identified with recruiting community college transfers?
♦ How are administrators (and other key constituents) accomplishing the
recruitment of transfer students and what if any, do they identify as the goals of this type of transfer?
♦ How do administrators consider their institution’s mission and responsibilities in the context of higher education in Massachusetts?
Each of the sub-questions was intentionally designed to draw out particular information. The question concerning institutional context was asked to illuminate the distinctive features of each institution and to understand how these three institutions are situated in the broader arena of the American higher education system. The question
about benefits and challenges was meant to draw out a better understanding of the considerations the institutions took into account in order to decide whether to pursue and continue this practice. A few administrators did not feel comfortable casting their
recruitment practices in this light, so the question was adjusted to reconsider “benefits” as strengths brought to institutions by community college transfer students.
The question concerning how recruitment is done was asked in order to get a sense of how many resources are invested in the practice. Since two of the three schools rely on the revenue of transfer students to balance their budgets and the third school has invested heavily in ensuring community college students access, it was clear at the beginning of the case studies that the institutions were committed at least on some level to securing transfer students. This question was also asked to gain an understanding of any support services that an institution might provide in order to retain those community college students.
Finally, the last question about how institutions view their role in the context of Massachusetts was asked in order to gain a better understanding of the relationships these institutions have formed within the state of Massachusetts and how the institutions have engaged students in the state. This question seemed particularly important given the projected demographic changes facing Massachusetts and how that will likely impact the pursuit of higher education for students within the state. In 2005, it had the highest graduation rate for bachelor’s degrees in the nation at 67 percent (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005). In 2008, higher education in Massachusetts ranked above average among states in all categories except for affordability (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2008). However, when one breaks down educational
attainment by race and ethnicity, the results are less impressive. Only 15 percent of Hispanics, between the ages of 24 and 65 have obtained a bachelor’s degree compared to 43 percent of whites (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2008). This constitutes one of the largest gaps in the nation. As the Hispanic population continues to grow, this gap in college attainment may have profound repercussions for the state. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education estimates that if all racial groups within the state were able to achieve the same level of educational
achievement, then the total annual personal income would rise by almost 10 billion dollars (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2008). As 68 percent of the higher education institutions in Massachusetts are private four-year colleges, it makes sense that they can be key players in addressing this persistent gap (www.cihe.neasc.org). As discussed later in this chapter, the question about how institutions regard their
relationship with the state did not garner the response I had initially anticipated. The three institutions in this study were all involved in local community engagement initiatives, but administrators did not reflect on the overall state of higher education in the
Commonwealth and how their institution could potentially impact statewide trends or concerns.
Cross- Case Findings
As discussed in Chapter 4, four themes emerged from the question of why
institutions recruit community college transfer students. Below is a summary table of the major themes identified. Although community engagement was given as a major reason for all three institutions, the case study findings suggest that each institution conceives of
and participates in community engagement differently. Only Clark University identified it as its primary reason for recruiting community college students.
Table 11.
Major Reasons for the Recruitment of CC Transfer Students by Institution Strategic Enrollment Practices Diversity Institutional Enrichment Community Engagement
Amherst No Yes Yes Yes
Clark Yes Yes Yes Yes
X Yes No No Yes
Note: Bold indicates primary reason given
As noted by the bold indication, a different primary reason was identified for each of the institutions. These primary reasons were identified mainly identified through the coding of the data collected through the interviews of the administrators involved with the transfer process at each institution. Amherst had dual primary reasons of institutional enrichment and diversity, particularly in the form of socioeconomic diversity. There was also a strong sense shared by administrators that the grant-funded initiative on recruiting community college transfers gave the Amherst community opportunities to practice social justice. The primary reason given at Clark was community engagement. Since the 1980s Clark has committed itself to being an integral part of its local community,
including efforts to make Clark accessible to Worcester residents. The reasons behind this community engagement are explored in Chapter 4 and later in this chapter. A related reason for recruitment that was frequently voiced at Clark was that the school attracts students who exemplify their motto: “Challenge Convention, Change Our World,” and that these students might come from all paths to college, not just the traditional or conventional one. An important secondary reason for the recruitment of community
college students was also identified at Clark, which was that the practice was part of the institution’s strategic enrollment practices. Although it was no mentioned as frequently or as broadly as the theme of community engagement, administrators in both admissions and financial aid acknowledged that merit aid was strategically used to attract
academically talented community college transfer students. At X University, strategic enrollment practices were identified as the primary reason for the recruitment of community college transfer students. The institution is a large private university and it relies on a significant transfer population to balance its operating budget. A secondary reason given by administrators in the office of admissions was that the recruitment of local community college students was in part a tribute to institutional history, and
therefore may be considered as an effort at community engagement. A similar argument may be made for the evening division of the college, which cited an “access mission” on their part, particularly in light of the fact that the day school has changed so dramatically in the past decade. While the evening division noted that their recruitment of community college students was indeed strategic based on the market, there was reference to the strong commitment on the part of the Vice President of the division to being accessible. Interestingly, although the evening division has several programs available online, seventy five percent of the students reside in Massachusetts.
Each institution gave several specific examples of the benefits or strengths derived from having community college transfer students on their campuses. The benefits cited by Amherst are primarily related to the larger themes of diversity and institutional enrichment noted in the last chart. The institution is engaging in a targeted approach to the specific mission of increasing socioeconomic diversity on campus, and
the Community College Transfer Initiative is a piece of that. Administrators at Clark University identified the most benefits or strengths related to bringing these students to campus. This most likely can be attributed to the fact that they both rely on the financial revenue from their transfer students and have tied the practice to their school’s motto. X University cited the fewest reasons for the recruitment efforts, and it was clear throughout the case study that there was some ambivalence about what strengths community college students brought to the day programs during this period of transition to a more selective institution.
Table 12.
Strengths (Benefits) Of CC Transfer Students
Amherst College Clark University X University Accessible population 9 9 Socioeconomic diversity 9 9 Racial diversity 9
Diversity of life experiences 9 9
May be more dedicated, mature students 9 9 9
Way of improving/maintaining relations with
surrounding communities 9 9 9
Less pressure on admissions to recruit 9
Faculty and Staff enrichment 9
Component of social justice 9 9
Bright, successful students 9 9
As noted in Chapter 4, administrators at all three institutions also identified
several challenges that affected the institution’s efforts to recruit these students, as well as students’ efforts to apply and attend these institutions. Since all three schools reported that they did not identify a retention issue with transfers, these challenges were either ones that those at the institution felt they were able to address through student services or ones that had potential applicants “self-select” out of the application process. In Chapter 1, I suggested that there is a concern on the part of administrators at four-year colleges that community college students might face obstacles (whether academic, financial, or cultural) that initially prohibited them from entering into other tiers of higher education. Some of the obstacles noted were related to such deficits, but it is important to note that all three schools expressed the belief that, despite the difficulties faced by students, there was not a shortage of well-qualified students applying for transfer from community colleges. Furthermore, all three institutions noted that most of their community college transfers were successful in achieving their degrees, with similar retention and graduation rates as their peers. These findings are in line with the findings of Alicia Dowd and Glenn Gabbard (2006) and should help to dispel the myths that there are not a lot of community college transfer students qualified to transfer to selective institutions or that community college transfer students cannot succeed at selective four-year institutions.
Table 13.
Challenges Of Recruiting CC Transfer Students
Amherst College Clark University X University
Providing financial aid 9 9
Integrating non-residential transfers on mainly residential campus
9 9 9
Specific challenges to first-generation cc transfers 9 9
CC students’ concerns over transfer credits 9 9 9
Faculty/Administrators concerns over transfer credits 9 9
Academic preparation of some cc transfers 9 9 9
CC students’ difficulty in navigating application processes
9 9
CC students’ lack of financial resources 9 9
The main challenge facing Amherst is assimilating the community college transfers to their new environment. The main challenges facing Clark are outreach, transfer credits, and affordability The main challenges identified at X University are the ability of students to navigate its institutional systems, from the curriculum to financial aid services, as well as the issue of affordability. Later in the chapter, these challenges will be revisited in a discussion about what these institutions are able or willing to do for community college transfers, and what they are not.
Social Reproduction Theory
Another light by which to consider the strengths and challenges identified by the case study sites is that offered by social reproduction theory. Social reproduction theory is often explained in terms of the exchange of resources or capital. At each institution administrators made reference to ways in which their institution was either invested in
various kinds of capital or interested in exchanging capital, or ultimately increasing their overall values of capital. To better analyze the importance of these endeavors, four specific types of capital have been identified for consideration: economic capital, intellectual capital, social capital and symbolic capital. Economic capital equates to money. For a college or university, this may be in the form of tuition revenue, room and board fees, endowments, and research money. Since economic capital is of so much importance in our market society, institutions often invest their economic capital to “buy” faculty with competitive salaries or improve their facilities in order to attract students with more intellectual capital or donors who have social or economic capital to invest. All three of the institutions in this study have significant tuition and fees, and therefore require a considerable financial investment, whether on the part of the institution, the federal government, or the student and his or her family. Certainly institutions are always looking to cover their costs and build their revenue stream. Intellectual capital, which is often considered under the larger umbrella of cultural capital by many social reproduction theorists, equates to knowledge. It may be in the form of the academic performance of entering students, as measured by SAT scores and high-school or college GPAs, or it may be in the caliber of faculty and the research that they produce. It is also represented in the curriculums offered at individual institutions, the research conducted, and the graduate programs offered. Social capital is about networking. It can be represented by the “know-how” that students possess to navigate the college application process, or more specifically, it can be the social networking opportunities that exist on a college campus such as those established through academic programs, professional associations, athletics, honor societies, and alumni relations among others. These networks may include more
formal relationships between students and their institutions (as represented by faculty and administrators), as well as the social connections made between families and individuals who attend the same higher education institution. Often these connections are lifelong ones, as is evidenced by the strong support many colleges receive from their alumni associations.
Perhaps the most important type of capital for institutions is symbolic capital, which in many ways is a compilation of all the types of capital, and is manifested in an institution’s reputation. It is reflected in how others view the institution, and it can be so powerful because it often goes unquestioned and those institutions that possess a lot of symbolic capital continue to manifest it. Reputation is notoriously difficult to quantify, and for a long time was loosely based on who attended what schools and the academic pursuits at those institutions. Since the creation of rankings such as those produced by US News & World Report, there is now a focus on quantifiable measures of reputation, which primarily try to measure the different types of capital an institution possesses. These rankings look at measures such as acceptance rate, average SAT scores of accepted students, endowment, and other indicators of an institution’s academic strength and popularity. However, there are many who would argue that while these measures may capture or even define the essence of a college’s reputation, they are misguided in that they do not accurately determine whether institutions are effective and efficient at providing a higher education. Still, there is no denying that both the rankings and the popular reputations of certain colleges hold a lot of sway in American society, and therefore contribute to the symbolic capital of those institutions recognized at the top of the tiers. To reiterate, in order to grow, symbolic capital requires the three previously
mentioned types of capital, but given the predominance of the market culture in our society, it especially relies on financial capital.
Some of the codes used to classify data in the study clearly could be grouped according to which type of capital they seemed to most represent. As mentioned earlier,